search

… The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 103. The Government contested those arguments. …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by (...)”. 24. The Government contested that argument. A. Admissibility 1. Lack of victim status of the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants 25. …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by . …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by . Judgment shall be pronounced publicly...” A. Admissibility 1. As regards the compatibility of the applicant’s complaint ratione materiae 22. …

… They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 92. The Government contested that argument. Admissibility 93. The Government objected that the available domestic remedies had not been exhausted. 94. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by .” A. Admissibility 18. The Government argued that, as the applicant had failed to properly register his claim in the above-mentioned insolvency proceedings, his application to the Court was inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 19. The applicant maintained that he had complied with the exhaustion requirement. 20. …

… She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” A. Admissibility 1. The parties’ submissions 21. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies. …

… They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” A. Admissibility 38. The Government submitted that Article 6 of the Convention was not applicable to the contested proceedings, because the applicants had been charged with an administrative rather than a criminal offence. 39. …

… The Court must therefore ascertain whether the CAS could be regarded as an “ and by ” within the meaning of that Article and the principles laid down in paragraphs 138 to 144 above, at the time when it adjudicated the applicants’ respective cases. 149. …